rumsfeld to declare end to fighting in afghanistan

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
S

sharky

New Yorker
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Messages
2,637
Location
Los Angeles
does this piss anyone else off? we go into Iraq and divert attention from where it should be and we still don't have bin Laden. How can we declare an end to fighting if we still don't have bin Laden?

Seeking to reassure jittery allies
that Afghanistan is safe for reconstruction, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld plans to declare that major combat operations
there are over.
Rumsfeld, who arrived Thursday from Iraq, was to visit a
training facility where U.S. troops are working with the Afghan
national army. He also was meeting with President Hamid Karzai.
Rumsfeld has said that most of Afghanistan is secure but he also
has said the region along the border with Pakistan remains
dangerous.
The secretary, nevertheless, was poised to declare major combat
over during a news conference with Karzai at the presidential
palace here.
 
This pisses me off too. We still don't have Bin Laden or any of the Taliban big shots. Those guys are bad news. 9/11 was possibly the most stressful day of my life because it took me three hours to get news that my sisters in New York were safe. One of them was living in Lower Manhattan at the time. As it turned out she'd gone to Brooklyn to work. I still think there is a threat and this is insane. :madspit: :mad: :censored: :censored: :scream: :scream:
 
Last edited:
A very good friend of mine spent 6 months all over Afghanistan in 2002. From his experience which went far beyond a normal tour of duty there, tells me that what Rumsfeld says is right on the money.

The USA is catching lot of the Al Quada and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. #3 on the list was captured last year. #4 was captured yesterday. Every day thousands of US soldiers, CIA officers, FBI agents, are on the hunt for terrorist. It would be foolish to deny that and actually a bit disrespectful considering the risk and stress these soldiers and agents are under.
 
understandably sting, but if we keep catching these people and there are still more, how can we declare victory? how can we declare victory when the guy we were there for is still missing?
 
Rumsfeld did not declare victory, he declared a phase of a particular military operation to be over. There is a difference.
 
I agree with sharky. No disrespect towards anyone intended, Sting. I'm glad there has been progress made, and it's been reported that Al-Qaeda is really weakened. Still, I wonder if it isn't a bit premature to actually declare victory with so many of the big shots still on the loose.
 
STING2 said:
Rumsfeld did not declare victory, he declared a phase of a particular military operation to be over. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, MAJOR combat operations. Its not like part of this or that is over. MAJOR combat. sorry, but if they haven't found bin Laden they should be throwing every soldier they have at him -- not say "Oh we're almost finished with Afghanistan." The whole reason we bombed Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden. Where is he?
 
sharky said:
The whole reason we bombed Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden.
Click to expand...

No. It was to remove a regime that sponsored terrorism. Bin Laden is the trophy everyone is fixated on. He can hang in his Pakistani cave for only so long.
 
sharky,

get with the program

the 'war on terror' needs a poster boy.


this can not end too early, must not peak too early.



remember the lessons of Bush 1.
 
True, the Taliban got kicked out of power, and good riddance. They were a bunch of :censored: :censored: :censored: It's been reported that the present central government doesn't have much power outside of Kabul. It seems to me that there still might be a little too much chaos in Afghanistan to declare victory. I'm not sure, Iraq completely knocked Afghanistan out of the news.:confused: :confused:
 
Last edited:
Rumsfeld declared end of fighting in afghanistan, not a vicrory.. how could he?
There is still local resistance (I'm sure US military will get control over it they have more than enough military power)

But.. some primary goals announced before the wars weren't reached, "just" two governments replaced.

Either the people start to believe that it was a victory anyway or the US government should find Ossama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and the WMDs as announced.

If both things fail we might see the next invasion.

Klaus

p.s. i wonder if Rumsfeld remembered his last visit in Baghdad when he was in Iraq.
 
Klaus,

"Rumsfeld declared end of fighting in afghanistan, not a vicrory.. how could he?
There is still local resistance (I'm sure US military will get control over it they have more than enough military power)"

Rumsfeld declared an end to MAJOR military operations, not an end to fighting or victory! Major military operations could resume if they are required. The "resistance" you speak of does not require Major Military operations to stop it or manage it. A good friend of mine that had a unique role in several parts of Afghanstan for 6 months last year knows this. He just spent 3 months in Iraq/Kuwait fighting Saddams thugs. He finally comes home to my area tomorrow! Can you say, PARTY!
:sexywink:


"Either the people start to believe that it was a victory anyway or the US government should find Ossama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and the WMDs as announced"

I have said it a billion times! It was never incumbent upon the USA or any country to find WMDs in Iraq, it was Incumbent upon Iraq to prove it had disarmed itself of such weapons. US forces job is to ensure any future Iraqi government does not have WMDs.

It was never the chief goal of the USA to actually catch or kill a single person. It was ensuring that those individuals were disarmed from their primary means of power. That has been done!

". i wonder if Rumsfeld remembered his last visit in Baghdad when he was in Iraq."

I am sure he did, but its obvious many don't remember or correctly understand why he was there the first time. They fail to appreciate the context of the time and what was going on then.
 
sting, sorry but I disagree. What exactly were our goals in these wars? After Sept. 11, they said we had to go to Afghanistan to get bin Laden, not to take down the Taliban. And they went in to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from his WMDs.

So let's see where we are now: we bomb countries, set up really unstable governments, and pull our main power out. As Bush said during the election, he isn't in to Nation Building. And that's obvious. He's in to bombing a country, making people run scared, and leaving. What do you think is going to happen to an unstable government if we leave?

I said it in another thread and I say it here again: we caught the guy who hijacked a boat 15 years ago and killed one guy. Why have we not caught a guy who killed 3,000 people 18 months ago? I'm sorry but we should still be in full force going after bin Laden and we've given up the fight to go after someone who had no proven direct connection to the attacks on our country.
 
That's right, the government in Kabul is very unstable. It really doesn't have much power outside of Kabul. It's a scary situation. OK, no one declared victory. I've posted a few looney notes over the past three days because I've been sick. Everyone just hopes the terrorists don't strike again.
 
[off topic]
loony notes over the past few days? why stop now? I post loony notes all the time!!!!
[/off topic]
 
sharky said:
[off topic]
loony notes over the past few days? why stop now? I post loony notes all the time!!!!
[/off topic]
Click to expand...


I probably won't stop because I still have a :censored: illness. Back to the regularly scheduled controversy.
 
sharky,

The Al Quada organization was based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban. In order to destroy Al Quada's main base of operations, the Taliban had to be overthrown. The Taliban government was overthrown and Afghanistan has its first stable government in nearly 3 decades. Stable for Afghanistan that is. Al Qauda is a tiny fraction of its former self. Over half of the top leaders have been captured or killed. If you understand what nation building involves especially in an area like Afghanistan, I would hope you would realize that it does not take weeks, it takes years and sometimes decades! 8,000 US troops are currently stationed in Afghanistan. A good friend of mine was there for 6 months in 2002. In his job, he was involved in operations in nearly every part of that country. More about his experience later.

In Iraq, the USA and other countries tried for 12 years to get Iraq to comply with its obligations following the 1991 Gulf War. Every non-war measure failed. If anything, the USA waited to long to invade and disarm Saddam. Saddam is out of power and his military and security forces that would have operated and used his WMD have been destroyed. Saddam, if still alive is concentrating on that. He is cut off from everything that made him a threat. He is not a cave living master like Bin Ladin.

"So let's see where we are now: we bomb countries, set up really unstable governments, and pull our main power out. As Bush said during the election, he isn't in to Nation Building. And that's obvious. He's in to bombing a country, making people run scared, and leaving. What do you think is going to happen to an unstable government if we leave?"

I'm sure you''ll never appreciate the fact that two nations have been liberated of some the worst governments in history. Would it be fair to say that you are into a dictator that killed 1.7 million people? Perhaps you think we should have left him in power to kill another 1.7 million? The US military liberated Iraq and in doing so have saved 24 million Iraqi's from Saddams future adventures. Oh, and the USA is not about to leave any time soon! US troops are still in Bosnia and Kosovo, if you forgot! I'd say if anything George Bush has made nation building his top priority. He is maintaining the US presence in Bosnia and Kosovo and now has put US troops in Afghanstan and Iraq to help those countries develop.

"Why have we not caught a guy who killed 3,000 people 18 months ago? I'm sorry but we should still be in full force going after bin Laden and we've given up the fight to go after someone who had no proven direct connection to the attacks on our country"

#1 he might be dead. If he is buried under a hundred feet of rubble and dirt, we will never find him. If he is hiding in Iran, it will be difficult to find him because of the Iranian government. The War on terror is not about ONE person! Bin Ladin is not Al Quada! He is the leader and is powerless if the rest of the organization has been heavily destroyed. How many attacks on the USA have their been in the past 18 months by Al Quada. 0 Looks like Bush is doing an excellent job so far.

My friend spent 6 months in Afghanistan heavily involved in operations. He was in Kabul at the US embassy, in Kandahar in the south, and in the moutains in Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan. The country given its history is coming along just fine. The main thing he was concerned about was the currency. The USA has not left Afghanistan. My friend just spent 6 months there doing work I'm sure few have heard of.
 
STING2:

everyone agrees that the US changed something in Afghanistan and Iraq, but you must admit that the reasons for these wars before and after the wars seem to differ.

If i speculate about the reasons for this change i see either
a) They were wrong with their evaluation of the situation before the war
b) they knew exactly what they were doing but had to tell different things to their citizens to get their support

The invasion had some good and some ugly side effects.

It's great that there is no more Taliban Regime
It's bad that the new regime has a lack of power and authority in the whole country.
It's good that Taliban can't discriminate women and non-believers like they did and can't torture their people anymore.
It's bad that prisenors can die a unnatural way while being "questioned" in camps where the Red Cross wasn't allowed to see the complete areal..

Just 2 simple examples of Afghanistan.
As i can see this it is not the fault of US soldiers bad decisions like these are not done by soldiers.

Klaus

p.s. is it right that this was Rumsfelds frist visit in Iraq since the famous shaking hands with Saddam picture?
 
Klaus,

"everyone agrees that the US changed something in Afghanistan and Iraq, but you must admit that the reasons for these wars before and after the wars seem to differ."

What the USA did in these countries went well beyond just "changing something". The reason for the war in Afghanistan was to destroy the terrorist infustructure there. The reason for the war in Iraq was to ensure that Iraq was indeed disarmed of its WMD. These were the reasons before and they are still the reasons after.

"It's bad that the new regime has a lack of power and authority in the whole country."

Nation Building is not like going to Burger King or any other fast food place. Nation Building takes time, especially in a country like Afghanistan where the central government has never in the past 2,000 years had authority over the whole country.

"It's bad that prisenors can die a unnatural way while being "questioned" in camps where the Red Cross wasn't allowed to see the complete areal.."

My friend was involved in the questioning. The alleged abuse is false.

".s. is it right that this was Rumsfelds frist visit in Iraq since the famous shaking hands with Saddam picture?"

Yep, Rumsfeld was among over a thousand "important" people from various countries around the world that went to Iraq at one time or another during the 1980s. In 1983, Saddam had not done much more than the Hassad family regime in Syria has done. Colin Powell I believe is in Syria or is going there. I'm sure will here a similar comment about this in the future. I don't think its a terrible thing when people sit down and talk about issues, even if the person is a potential devil. One must also remember the context and the time when such events took place and what was known then and had not happened as well. 1983 was a different time from 2003.
 
For those not up on their Afgan history, factional fighting there has been a way of life for 6,000 years. Its going to take more than 18 months to change that, but all ready the average person there is free of the torture and suffering from the prior regime.
 
STING2 said:
For those not up on their Afgan history, factional fighting there has been a way of life for 6,000 years. Its going to take more than 18 months to change that, but all ready the average person there is free of the torture and suffering from the prior regime.
Click to expand...

Yep, they're free of the prior regime. Instead, they are suffering from the regime that was in place before that one. This is like the situation that enabled the Taliban to come into power. A new regime may not respects human rights, may promote religious fundamentalism, etc. But when that regime can stop the infighting of the warlords a large part of the population may support the 'new Taliban' (or whatever it will be). This has happened before (not only in Afghanistan, but also in Germany in the 1920s, in Italy shortly thereafter, in Russia in 1918). When a new party can stop the chaos and 'make the trains run on time' (so to speak) it will get the support from the people and Afghanistan will be back to where it was before 9-11.

C ya!

Marty
 
It's mind-boggling how many different ethnic groups, tribes, etc, etc make up present day Afghanistan. The Pashtuns used to dominate Afghan politics but they can't anymore. Due to political circumstances they're no longer a majority in Afghanistan. The British planners drew the present boundary between Afghanistan and India in 1893. Pakistan was then part of India. Afghanistan was sort of a no-man's land between India and Russia. Afghanistan hasn't always been quite the mess it is now. It's screwed up due to twenty years of civil war. Yes, they have a history of factions, warlords and such. They haven't always had civil wars going on.
 
Popmartijn,

Well I guess you support putting the Taliban back in power. But, the trains didn't run on time during that regime because there pratically no trains at all. This is Afghanistan, not early 20th century Europe. History and Culture here are vastly different. Its a fact that the government in Kabul(which ever it may be) has never at any point in history had control of the country side. I also don't consider the 1990s to be a calm period of time for Afghanistan. Thousands were killed in daily fighting between the Taliban and Northern Alliance. Perhaps you should tell the victims of Sunday Massacres at Football fields around the country your perception of security and safety under the Taliban regime. By the way, the Massacres did not involve a soccer game.

The fact is the net numbers of Rape, Torture, and execution are well below what the numbers were under the Taliban. It is not state policy now to Rape, Torture and execute anyone. If thats not considered an improvement over the past regime, then I don't know what is.

This is not a movie or a TV show, its the real world of Afghanistan. Development comes with time and patience.
 
Klaus,


"can your friend also say something about why neither the Red Cross nor ai were allowed to enter the upper floor of that building?"

Maybe not in that specific case, but he can certainly comment about the Red Cross and ai in the work he did while he was there. Being captured by US forces was in most cases the best thing that could happen for several Al Quada and Taliban, especially during the winter. In Afghanstan, there are few roads, no lights in the rural areas, no food, not much of anything but sub-freezing temperatures at night during the winter. Its not hard to see that many Al Quada and Taliban must of felt like they were in heaven being given a hot meal and a warm place to sleep. Things people in the Western world take for granted.
 
This specifically is one of the reasons why several human rights organisations (including the international red cross and ai) think that some of the prisinors on the US base get tortured (they have eye witnesses and the fact that US military denied theose teams to take a look at that building makes them believe that those eye witnesses)

Since international law allows institutions like the International Red Cross to inspect these buildings i'm curious if your friend has any explenations for that)

Klaus

p.s. the eye witnesses reports were something like that:
US special forces say their afghan "employes" how to torture the victim and US special forces ask the victim questions while they are tortured.
 
OMG, the violence got *real* nasty in 1992. That's when the civil war got particularly brutal. I think at one point Afghanistan was more stable than it is now but I'll be damned if it was during the war or during the Taliban period. Back during the '60's it was more stable, but stability is relative. In 1973 they kicked the king out of there. With all of those groups it's a bit messy. Personally I find the history of the country to be a real b*tch to study because of all of those groups.
 
Klaus,

Well the allegations of several of these organizations that have a political bias against the current US administration is not surprising. Many of these same organizations were claiming a massacre in the Jenin area on the West Bank. Once the evidence was found, it was proven that no massacre took place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phantom Dreamer
  • Locked
Justin Trudeau Neoliberal
Replies
0
Views
765
Phantom Dreamer
Phantom Dreamer
Irvine511
the cost of Iraq
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
Achtung11
A
hiphop
Iraqi oil workers speak up
Replies
1
Views
639
hiphop
hiphop
anitram
The Woman Who Knew Too Much
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
INDY500
I
Canadiens1131
Rape in the U.S. armed forces
Replies
8
Views
1K
Diemen
Diemen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom